Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion

This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.

Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.
If you are not currently a project participant and wish to help you may still participate in the project. This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes.

Shortcuts

Wikiproject Inclusion is dedicated to promoting inclusion on Wikipedia. It is the project page for the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Please join us.

Goals

To continuously improve Wikipedia and make it the most comprehensive source of reliable encyclopedic information available on the planet.
Support Wikipedia's premise to comprise the sum of all human knowledge, freely accessible to all humans.

How to help

There are several ways to help:

Notify your comrades on the talk page when interesting discussions, rescues, or deletions are occurring.
Read to understand Inclusionism and Deletionism and how they interplay on Wikipedia.
Declare your opinions on your user page using the templates below.
Argue for Inclusion at relevant Village pump discussions.
Join the Article Rescue Squadron and improve its articles tagged for rescue.
Tackle the front lines of article deletion at AfD. You can monitor the entire current feed or concentrate on deletion debates in a particular area:
1. Category:AfD debates uses the category function built into the AfD template. It has less specific categories but should theoretically pull from all deletion debates.
2. Wikiproject Deletion sorting manually places AfDs into a plethora of categories; help them categorize or monitor one of the categories they create.
3. Add sources to articles. That both improves them in the eyes of everyone, and makes them less desirable to pick up for deletion or destructive merging.
Show your love for Wikipedia by being present. If you have some spare time, try to make an edit to an article once per day or once per weekend.

Resources

Try to fix problems – The Wikipedia policy of trying to correct problems in articles through editing improvements, expansion and adding reliable sources is often more appropriate than a complete deletion or merging of articles.

Templates

Text

Description

Product

Userbox

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

Userbox

incl

This user is an inclusionist.

Userbox

This user is a member of Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Userbox

This user is an inclusionist.

Userbox

This user is a proud member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

Banner

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

Invitation

Greetings, you are invited to join WikiProject Inclusion, the project page for the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

To join the project, add your name to the list here.

To indicate your membership of the project, you may care to include one of the following templates on your userpage

WikiProject Inclusion

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

incl

This user is an inclusionist.

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

Pledge

We the undersigned have formed this local WikiProject —based on the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians —to better organize action to support the principle article and material inclusion and to counter exclusion and deletion.

We hold the view that the process of deletion carries a "systemic bias" or "process bias" by which the process itself becomes a haven for those who wish to use it —emphasizing deletion rather than offering reasonable alternatives for keeping or redirection. (Alternate project title: Countering Process Bias. See also Countering Systemic Bias)
We campaign for the proper use of the Wikipedia:Cleanup process as it was instituted as a mainstream buffer before deletion is used.
We seek to institute a review process for Wikipedia articles and templates, which will act in a similar way as Cleanup does for main articles.
We also seek to begin a consolidation of the deletion processes, whereby these can be collectively tracked and responded to.

Participants

Active

Feel free to add yourself here!

Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC) - Wikipedia has unlimited space; we should start using more of it. Everything is notable to someone.[reply]
Mark Chung (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Supporting a deletionist to delete an incomplete article = supporting someone to kill a sick baby. If you say "What use is this new article?" I ask "Of what use is a new-born baby? Please ask a deletionist to kill a sick baby before deleting articles. If all Wikipedians are deletionists, Wikipedia won't exist. It will be deleted. Ironically, they didn't delete their own page. Funny.[reply]
Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twfowler
Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC) - WP is not paper, and notability is almost always a POV concept. Oh, and "encyclopedic" is the most abused word ever. Sometimes deletion is meaningful, but much more often not. I patrol AfDs (2-3 a day usually), with an eye on BLPs which are usually slashed by overzealous application of BLP policies.[reply]
Sternenmeer (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC) ‒ WP is really not Paper. In fact, the Paper Age is ending before our very eyes. The deletionists overzealously stick too much to old pre-digital principles dictated by former scarcety of information that no longer exists anymore, not outside our minds anyway ... Enraged by the current ridiculous deletionism storm in the German Wikipedia (see fefe & netzpolitik) I pledge to improve or flag content rather than delete it. I'll also probably like never propose an article's deletion, cause if it really validly should be deleted, someone else will propose it anyway while I'm off adding valuable content somewhere else :D :D :D. I pledge to enrich and grow WP best I can :).[reply]
Oneiros (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Danson (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) CONSERVATA VERITATE! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER![reply]
J 1982 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Do you miss the old days back in 1994 when only the paper encyclopedia was around? If you were even born back then![reply]
Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Ogden (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ne0Freedom: as long as it is verifiable, Quotations don't need to be NPOV. All History books are written by those triumphant in wars, and therefore POV. --Ne0 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smartcom5 ^(Talk ?) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Dunno why i wasn't still listed here, since i've got the template on my userpage from the very beginning. Anyway, here i am![reply]
Universal Life (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Knight of Gloucestershire Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toby Bartels (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC): There's still hope! Wikipedia is not paper. The only standard for notability should be verifiability.[reply]
allixpeeke (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Obento Musubi (talk · contribs)
Ariel Pontes (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Illegitimate Barrister, 12:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Inclusionism! Tolerance, not bigotry.[reply]
Mitar (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GLPeterson (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC) I agree. Wikipedia is not paper. Edits = Efforts; effort should never be wasted. Improve and expand instead of delete! Everything is notable to someone. The only standard for notability should be verifiability.[reply]
Hazarasp (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thewellman (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC) I'm not usually a joiner, but these goals deserve all the support I can offer.[reply]
— Myk Streja ^(when?) 02:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Venerable is not the same as verifiable or reliable. Just because a source is "new" does not mean it can't be used or relied upon.[reply]
A Guy into Books (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC) I just do not agree with how easily people delete perfectly good articles just because they cant find a dozen references on google.[reply]
StrayBolt (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC) - "It is a difficult task…"[reply]
User:PseudoSkull - I believe highly in the philosophy of inclusionism. Moderation between deletionism and inclusionism would sound like a good idea to me, except even within this it takes away from the very primary purposes of Wikipedia. Include as much as possible, and delete as little as possible. Delete only the unverifiable/untrue and the nonsense. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Unbeholden (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hammelsmith (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC) happy to help.[reply]
PrussianOwl (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC) - Wikipedia has a deletionist bias, and I think we're losing too much good content to that.[reply]
Candy luv music(19:10,24 February 2020

Inactive

These participants sympathize with inclusionism, but do not take an active role in this project. If you find your name on this list, feel free to move it back to the list of active participants when you are ready to contribute.

Inactive participants list

Abeg92 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC). Absolutely.[reply]
User:CyclePat --Pat 04:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (do check my other categories)[reply]
DGG 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - (also a member of WikiProject Deletion, & consider the 2 compatible)[reply]
Dendodge: I'm all for it! Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge). (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ganeshk
Hello world 6 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Murray
Devin Murphy 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rogue 9 Wikipedia is not paper. People need to figure this out.
Snowolf^(talk) on 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Watchtower (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absent

This is a list of participants who haven't edited Wikipedia for a year. If you find your name on this list, feel free to move it back to the list of active participants when you return to editing.

Absent participants list

Agne27 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - a worthwhile contribution to improve Wikipedia[reply]
Ayoopdog Ayoopdog (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC), I am sick of Wikipedia being run by pro-delelitionists who remove heaps of budding articles.[reply]
Badbilltucker 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) - Good idea I am happy to support.[reply]
Bunty.Gill 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - There is always a right piece of information. It only needs to be found.[reply]
Butnotthehippo 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Douglas 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) - I'm finding out rather quickly how intolerant of the truth some people can be.[reply]
DCmacnut <> 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I consider myself an inclusionist, especially for Wikipedia's in other languages.[reply]
DiverScout DiverScout (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC) - Why do some editors act as if they're hosting Wikipedia on their own PC? Deletion is the recourse of those who know not how to research.[reply]
Dfrg.msc 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Edits = Efforts. Effort should never be wasted.[reply]
Doh5678 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Draeco (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ephilei yay
— Ewald ^{(talk|email|contrib)} 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feynman1918 Talk 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC). I am an inclusionist because the notability policy is primarily a policy on verifiability.[reply]
Fleerz I support this 100%! If we can out-collaborate the deletionists, our philosophy will win out. Fleerz (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ForgottenHistory (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guitardude3600 i need help keeping my articles up
Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC) In protest of out of process deletion.[reply]
Inclusionist (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JDG 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - Wikipedia's highest calling is to be a Compendium of Everything. High time to resist those who resist this.[reply]
User:Jeffledwin --Jeffledwin (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kasaalan
Kurt Weber
Lerner Salva veritate!
Lova Falk (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC) improve and expand instead of delete![reply]
Madeleined2 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Who says what's notable and what's not? For example, lots of Americans would consider Tintin non-notable, and one guy tried to stop an article from being created even though its subject had won lots of awards.[reply]
maggie4695
Mojo-chan (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Deletion should be the last resort on Wikipedia, not the first[reply]
User:Moris Juldagen je suis totalement d'accord,from Wikipedia French
Nabeth. I am clearly an inclusionist (which does not mean I accept hasty contribution, but rather that that I associate notable content with useful content, even when this content is not very important, and like to give the space for concept to develop / incubate). --Nabeth (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Photomaltese (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I am a inclusioniste because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, knowledge can be shared, they do not have to go through an academic and vertical system.[reply]
RockManQ ^(talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I used to be a deletionist, then I actually started to create and write articles. I saw how much hard work people put in to article writing. Call me a reformed deletionist (Granted I still have some deletionist tendencies and will still delete hoaxs, vanity pieces, not violations, etc...)[reply]
Rotbier
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Scepia
SF007. If "crap" is popular and gets media attention, it is usually kept, on the other hand, valuable coverage of important projects or organizations gets deleted simply due to a narrow interpretation of "notability", regardless of the value of the subject --SF007 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simetrical
Smeelgova 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC). I second the view of User:Charles Douglas above.[reply]
--SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Expect for articles that are vandalizing Wikipedia, CONSERVATA VERITATE![reply]
Stalin.P҉G 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ste|vertigo 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) - Stubbed this project, glad to see it alive.[reply]
Striver 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Split Infinity
T L Miles 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanos6 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Everything is notable.[reply]
Turnsteam (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) me too :)[reply]
UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) I am firmly in support of the application of editorial tools (especially collegial community discussion), solid work towards article improvement, and the adaptation of policy to reflect these precepts. Deletion should always be the absolute last course of action, when overwhelming consensus deems an Article either frivolous or irredeemable.[reply]
Wl219 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
xela20 13:10, 17 September 2008, Never underestimate the power of mankind to create, and its power to destroy. I'm happy to help.
Yiba (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC): Judgement on notability cannot be made without establishing a point of view. NPOV is a core policy that needs preservation of minor view points to ensure neutrality.[reply]
Zadern et 05:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:ɱ
98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC). Anyone skeptical of the contributions because I'm an IP can see here for my efforts.[reply]
盛世 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against article deletion

Related WikiProjects